We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan

Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.

At 5/27/2012 8:50:28 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:As a DDO member, I say you need to do more debates.

Perhaps.

As soon as I understand the purpose of existence.

We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan

: At 6/23/2012 1:15:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote: (to Jimtimmy)
:
: You are the equivelent of a fly buzzing around a cow. I can just swat you with my tail without it taking my attention away from grazing the sweet grass that is DDO.

It isn't God of the gaps. It is some sort of God being the only logical explanation for existence.

We aren't just filling "gaps" in science, we are pointing out that science without God cannot explain the very nature of existence.

We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan

No, I am saying there is no other possible explanation other than some sort of God.

That is dramatically different than the way you framed my argument.

We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan

No, I am saying there is no other possible explanation other than some sort of God.

That is dramatically different than the way you framed my argument.

There are other explanations such as the BBT and other theories.

Right, the BBT actually states that there was a finite moment when the universe began.

I am not arguing against the BBT. I am simply arguing that God was behind the BBT or whatever caused it.

It is known as the "Prime Mover". At some point, some all powerful entity outside of space and time had to set reality into motion. That would be God.

We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan

No, I am saying there is no other possible explanation other than some sort of God.

That is dramatically different than the way you framed my argument.

There are other explanations such as the BBT and other theories.

Right, the BBT actually states that there was a finite moment when the universe began.

I am not arguing against the BBT. I am simply arguing that God was behind the BBT or whatever caused it.

It is known as the "Prime Mover". At some point, some all powerful entity outside of space and time had to set reality into motion. That would be God.

Right, perhaps I should've clarified. The BBT explains the development of the universe over time. "In the distant past, the universe was very hot and dense. Since then, it has expanded and cooled over time."

However, I believe that the universe was in existence forever and has changed numerous times (bang-crumch-bang). I'm more of the evolutionary biolgy expert and not a astrophysics expert so therefore, I dn't feel qualified to tive a long answer on how the universe started.

Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler

At 5/27/2012 9:15:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:I don't understand how "God of the Gaps" is a fallacy.

Lets say you hear an argument for God. You can just say nobody has debunked it yet and move on, like you can say that you can't explain natural phenomena and move on.

"God of the Gaps" is basically the appeal to ignorance. "I don't know therefore God."

"God of the Gaps" is a typically a strawman, as it is in this case.

We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan

At 5/27/2012 9:15:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:I don't understand how "God of the Gaps" is a fallacy.

Lets say you hear an argument for God. You can just say nobody has debunked it yet and move on, like you can say that you can't explain natural phenomena and move on.

"God of the Gaps" is basically the appeal to ignorance. "I don't know therefore God."

Yes, but you could say this about anything. "I don't know a rebuttal to his argument for God therefore God." would be considered fallacious too, wouldn't it?

Pretty much unless the argument is sound and irrefutable.

(Granted that you were actually Kohai and Mr. Infidel) You believed some of the arguments were sound and irrefutable. Now you know better. "God of the Gaps" would cover such acceptance, wouldn't it? This is pretty much an atheist/agnostic ticket to never having to believe in God regardless of propositions.

At 5/27/2012 9:15:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:I don't understand how "God of the Gaps" is a fallacy.

Lets say you hear an argument for God. You can just say nobody has debunked it yet and move on, like you can say that you can't explain natural phenomena and move on.

"God of the Gaps" is basically the appeal to ignorance. "I don't know therefore God."

Yes, but you could say this about anything. "I don't know a rebuttal to his argument for God therefore God." would be considered fallacious too, wouldn't it?

Pretty much unless the argument is sound and irrefutable.

(Granted that you were actually Kohai and Mr. Infidel) You believed some of the arguments were sound and irrefutable. Now you know better. "God of the Gaps" would cover such acceptance, wouldn't it? This is pretty much an atheist/agnostic ticket to never having to believe in God regardless of propositions.

Can you clarify what you're asking me!

I never believed in god as kohai or mr.i. I was simly devil's advocate or trollin.

Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler

At 5/27/2012 9:15:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:I don't understand how "God of the Gaps" is a fallacy.

Lets say you hear an argument for God. You can just say nobody has debunked it yet and move on, like you can say that you can't explain natural phenomena and move on.

"God of the Gaps" is basically the appeal to ignorance. "I don't know therefore God."

Yes, but you could say this about anything. "I don't know a rebuttal to his argument for God therefore God." would be considered fallacious too, wouldn't it?

Pretty much unless the argument is sound and irrefutable.

(Granted that you were actually Kohai and Mr. Infidel) You believed some of the arguments were sound and irrefutable. Now you know better. "God of the Gaps" would cover such acceptance, wouldn't it? This is pretty much an atheist/agnostic ticket to never having to believe in God regardless of propositions.

Can you clarify what you're asking me!

I never believed in god as kohai or mr.i. I was simly devil's advocate or trollin.

Alrighty, then hypotheticals.

Imagine a person, an atheist, who just heard an argument for the existence of God. He doesn't have an immediate refutation, and the argument is structurally valid and he already accepts the premises. But he ignores it and continues being an atheist, confident that there is some refutation out there, or will come into being in the future. Isn't this "God of the Gaps"?

At 5/27/2012 9:15:57 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:I don't understand how "God of the Gaps" is a fallacy.

Lets say you hear an argument for God. You can just say nobody has debunked it yet and move on, like you can say that you can't explain natural phenomena and move on.

"God of the Gaps" is basically the appeal to ignorance. "I don't know therefore God."

Yes, but you could say this about anything. "I don't know a rebuttal to his argument for God therefore God." would be considered fallacious too, wouldn't it?

Pretty much unless the argument is sound and irrefutable.

(Granted that you were actually Kohai and Mr. Infidel) You believed some of the arguments were sound and irrefutable. Now you know better. "God of the Gaps" would cover such acceptance, wouldn't it? This is pretty much an atheist/agnostic ticket to never having to believe in God regardless of propositions.

Can you clarify what you're asking me!

I never believed in god as kohai or mr.i. I was simly devil's advocate or trollin.

Alrighty, then hypotheticals.

Imagine a person, an atheist, who just heard an argument for the existence of God. He doesn't have an immediate refutation, and the argument is structurally valid and he already accepts the premises. But he ignores it and continues being an atheist, confident that there is some refutation out there, or will come into being in the future. Isn't this "God of the Gaps"?

If the argument was PEARL then no. However, I think the atheist would be justified to do more research on the argument before flipping his worldview around (same with Theists).

Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler

Imagine a person, an atheist, who just heard an argument for the existence of God. He doesn't have an immediate refutation, and the argument is structurally valid and he already accepts the premises. But he ignores it and continues being an atheist, confident that there is some refutation out there, or will come into being in the future. Isn't this "God of the Gaps"?

If the argument was PEARL then no. However, I think the atheist would be justified to do more research on the argument before flipping his worldview around (same with Theists).

Imagine a person, an atheist, who just heard an argument for the existence of God. He doesn't have an immediate refutation, and the argument is structurally valid and he already accepts the premises. But he ignores it and continues being an atheist, confident that there is some refutation out there, or will come into being in the future. Isn't this "God of the Gaps"?

If the argument was PEARL then no. However, I think the atheist would be justified to do more research on the argument before flipping his worldview around (same with Theists).

You totally missed the question :P

"Wouldn't that be God of the Gaps"?

Would what be God of the Gaps? To say that the argument is sound has no rebuttals?

Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler

Imagine a person, an atheist, who just heard an argument for the existence of God. He doesn't have an immediate refutation, and the argument is structurally valid and he already accepts the premises. But he ignores it and continues being an atheist, confident that there is some refutation out there, or will come into being in the future. Isn't this "God of the Gaps"?

If the argument was PEARL then no. However, I think the atheist would be justified to do more research on the argument before flipping his worldview around (same with Theists).

You totally missed the question :P

"Wouldn't that be God of the Gaps"?

Would what be God of the Gaps? To say that the argument is sound has no rebuttals?

God of the Gaps, as you described, is basically "I don't know, but I'm not going to say God did it." Wouldn't this apply to refuting arguments? Thats what I was trying to say.

Imagine a person, an atheist, who just heard an argument for the existence of God. He doesn't have an immediate refutation, and the argument is structurally valid and he already accepts the premises. But he ignores it and continues being an atheist, confident that there is some refutation out there, or will come into being in the future. Isn't this "God of the Gaps"?

If the argument was PEARL then no. However, I think the atheist would be justified to do more research on the argument before flipping his worldview around (same with Theists).

You totally missed the question :P

"Wouldn't that be God of the Gaps"?

Would what be God of the Gaps? To say that the argument is sound has no rebuttals?

God of the Gaps, as you described, is basically "I don't know, but I'm not going to say God did it." Wouldn't this apply to refuting arguments? Thats what I was trying to say.

Not in every case. A lot, but not all, Theistic arguments are based upon ignorance. However, there are cases when this won't cut it such as the resurrection of Zeesus "proofs."

Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler

At 5/28/2012 10:00:43 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:In order for the Universe to not have God, science must prove that causality has no root. The causality root is, by definition, God -- the creator of the Universe.

You don't get much juice out of the definition of 'God' if you just define it as the cause of the universe. It could be anything - a supernatural God, another universe, a transcendental space unicorn, a black hole, a transdimensional space nerd who created our universe as a high school science project, this universe itself (if it exists necessarily), a quantum fluctuation etc. Or just the giant question mark that is the beginning of existence.

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)